ORDER : T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. 1. Questioning notice in RCA.126/2021, dated 03.08.2021 issued by the 4 th respondent, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.330 of Maddikera East Group Lands, Maddikera Mandal, Kurnool District by virtue of Gift Deed dated 08.09.2020 executed by her husband. It is further case of the petitioner that originally her father-in- law Sri Gudur Parvathiah purchased the subject land from the vendors Sri Sunkara Nownepati @ Sannagaddu and Sri Aavula Venkadu through sale agreement dated 01.08.1948. In recognizition of her father-in-law’s possession, the 4 th respondent issued enjoyment certificate dated 04.10.1996 in his favour. After the demise of her father-in-law, his wife Gudur Jayamma executed a registered Gift Deed dated 25.08.2008 in favour of petitioner’s husband bequeathing the subject land. It is further stated that in turn her husband executed gift deed dated 08.09.2020 in her favour and thus she has become absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. It is further stated that the revenue records would also reflect the name of her father-in-law was mutated in revenue records. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that while so the respondent Nos.7 & 8 made an application seeking to mutate their name in revenue records. In pursuance thereto, the 4 th respondent issued notice dated 28.06.2021 to her husband asking him to attend for enquiry to be conducted on 08.07.2021 in respect of subject land. It is further stated that the petitioner and her husband attend the office of the 4 th respondent on the said date and submitted explanation through Advocate along with all relevant records showing her claim over the subject land. It is further stated that the 4 th respondent having satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner expressed his opinion stating that the parties have to approach Civil Court to resolve the disputes between them. It is further stated that the 4 th respondent again issued notice dated 03.08.2021 directing the petitioners to attend for an enquiry to be conducted on 11.08.2021 in respect of the subject land. It is further stated that the 4 th respondent again issued notice dated 03.08.2021 directing the petitioners to attend for an enquiry to be conducted on 11.08.2021 in respect of the subject land. Questioning the same the present writ petition is filed stating that the 4 th respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the title over the subject land between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 & 8. 4. On the other hand the 7 th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the subject land originally belonged to one Sri Sunkara Navineti Sannagadu, who is the great grandfather of the 7 th respondent. It is further stated that his grandfather name is recorded as pattadar in RSR and in 10(1) Adangals for the Faslis 1417, 1419 and 1421. It is further stated that the grandfather of the petitioner alienated an extent of Ac.0.07 cents out of the total extent of Ac.0.21 cents in favour of third parties by virtue of sale deeds dated 27.07.1948. Later another extent of Ac.0.07 cents was also alienated in favour of third parties by virtue of registered sale deed dated 12.06.1956 and thereby retained an extent of Ac.0.07 cents which devolved on the 7 th respondent and his three (03) brothers. It is further case of the 7 th respondent that he made an application seeking to mutate his name in revenue records as against the subject land and in pursuance thereof, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner is claiming right over the same. 5. It is further stated the petitioner is claiming right from her father-in-law, who in turn purchased the subject land by virtue of agreement of sale dated 01.08.1948 which is not valid transaction under law. It is further stated that when the father-in-law of the petitioner had no title over the subject land, he could not have passed on better title to the petitioner. It is further stated that admittedly the name of father-in law of the petitioner was shown in the possessory column, though he had no right over the property and claimed that the petitioner is an absolute stranger to the subject property. 6. With the above pleadings, the 7 th respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the same is not maintainable. 7. Heard counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondent No.7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 8. 6. With the above pleadings, the 7 th respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the same is not maintainable. 7. Heard counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondent No.7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 8. Perused material available on record. 9. The present writ petition is filed questioning the notice in RCA.126/2021, dated 03.08.2021 issued by the 4 th respondent on the ground that the said authority is trying to decide the title between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.7 & 8 over the subject land, which is not permissible under law and the same is without jurisdiction. 10. The only ground on which the present writ petition is filed is that, the 4th respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. As per the provisions of Act 26 of 1971, the 4 th respondent is conferred with the power to conduct enquiry as provided under Section 4 & 5 of the said Act, whenever a request is made before him claiming right over the property. In the instant case, the 7 th respondent made representation, requesting the 4 th respondent to mutate his name in revenue records in respect of subject land. In pursuance thereof, the impugned notice was issued by the 4 th respondent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the 4 th respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the provisions of the said Act empowers the 4 th respondent to enquire into the matter. Further the counsel for petitioner after arguing the matter for some time, has given up the ground of jurisdiction and submitted that the petitioner would submit explanation to the impugned notice dated 03.08.2021. The said submission of the counsel for petitioner is placed on record. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter inasmuch as it is for the 4 th respondent to conduct enquiry and to pass appropriate orders thereon after taking into consideration the respective submissions. 11. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed and petitioner is directed to submit explanation to the impugned show cause notice within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed and petitioner is directed to submit explanation to the impugned show cause notice within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, the 4 th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter. It is needless to mention before passing orders, the 4 th respondent shall afford opportunity of being heard to all the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.